petito.oap.vp.amb.v1

THE TRACE ME APPReal traceability for end-customers

OAP-VP studyTeam: PetitoVentureLab.12

Monday, May 21, 2012

Hypothesis• Growing level of awareness on the environmental and ethical aspects on foodstuff• High demand for organic or ecological foodstuff as a clear indication of this development• Increased visibility of the supply chains within the food industry • Increased level of food security and control of health• Consumers are enabled to a better choice of foodstuff and awareness of their “foodprint”• This all leads to increase of added value, fidelity and transparency in the food chains that implement these practices

Experiments• Survey conducted through available social media to understand the demand and interest of such a service to consumers.• 112 interviews conducted in 4 distinct sections: 1) Current food shopping behaviors of users.2) Assessment of the level traceability in the current food market.3) Value of this information4) Demographics•Field identification of meat tags•Interview with a project manager of a EU traceability project (Niklas Hild, ROI4U/microtracking)•Interview with a school kid (10 years from Uppsala)




Results


•In Europe ((EC)178/2002) and in the US (FSMA. 2011. H.R. 2751 FDA), regulations are being issued•From the survey:

•The larger offer of different labels, the more detrimental for the customer opinion of what traceability is and how it works•New regulations will enforce traceability but the customer won’t know who’s responsibility is, the related legal issues and responsibilities •New systems of information should be in place


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002R0178:EN:NOT



Results


•In the US, only 1% of foodstuff is locally grown/produced•In EU:•Large development in the organic farming sector in recent years

•Farm level growth rates are impressive: areas have increased by 6.5% per year on average in the EU-27 in the period 2000-2008, animal numbers have increased by the range of 6.1- 22.2% annually in the EU-15 depending on species groups •Organic farming in the EU27 covered 7.8 million hectares in 2008, up by 7% compared with 2007.•Data available for the EU25 show an increase of 21% in the total organic area between 2005 and 2008.•In 2008, the largest organic area in the EU27 were Spain (1.3 mn ha), Italy (1.0 mn ha), Germany (0.9 mn ha), the UK (0.7 mn ha) and France (0.6 mn ha)•In 2007, the total organic area accounted for 4.1% of the total utilized agricultural area in the EU27. The highest proportions of organic area were recorded in Austria (15.7% of the total agricultural area), Sweden (9.9%) and Italy (8.9%) that year•Yet absolute levels stay modest since the organic sector still represents only 4.3% of the total UAA of the EU and between 0.5 and 5.0% of total numbers of animal according to the species. •Organic holdings would represent a mere 1.4% of all EU holdings (2.8% in the EU-15).

•There are considerable differences in terms of potential for growth in the area of organic•Organic production comes from fully converted areas. •Before an area can be considered as 'organic', it must undergo a conversion process.•In 2008, half of the countries had shares of between 10% and 20%.•The Netherlands and Denmark had shares of less than 10%•There were 4 countries whose share exceeded 40%: Poland (43.1%), Spain (47.6%), Romania (48.9%) and Bulgaria (74.6%)

Source: European Commission Directorate-Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentOrganic Farming - Unit H.3 Economic Analyses of EU Agriculture - Unit L.2



Results


•From the survey:

•People want to be informed about the content of retail foods•Ecological product is in high demand•At the same time, neither the certifying organization nor the price seem to be the deciding factor when purchasing



Results


•From the survey:

•People are unaware of the origin of products (processed or not)•26% thought the market was not traceable, up to 73% of only certain goods•Interestingly, information is not easy to get and the customer is unaware (28%), blames the food processing industry (29%) or the producer (12%)•10% thought that no good system was available



Results


•48% of consumers said their confidence in food safety has diminished•Things that worry US consumers:

1. Being assaulted by a coworker: 6%2. Flying: 40%3. The safety of their produce: 46%

•From the survey:

•35% of people don’t trust traceability institutions•Whilst 11% don’t care•43% of the population interviewed thought better traceability instruments should have been deployed before the E.coli outbreak last year. •80% within the top 3 categories



Results


•83% of consumers would choose a traceable product over a non-traceable one•And the majority of them would like to be able to retrieve a map rather than seeing a label.•They know nothing about the criteria these brands choose as their standards•Eco-friendly food has become the new battle ground for brandingTraceability back to origin

On web or mobile phone, in real time! ROI4U/microtracking



Results


•From the survey:

•78% of the population were thinking that it was difficult to access traceability information at the end-point in the 3 top categories•10% thought no good system was available•28% couldn’t give a reason•But an overwhelming 29% blamed the food processing industry



Results


•From the survey -transportation methods-:




•The majority (> 50% in cat.4-5) thought it’d be important or extremely important to know about the transportation of their produce with variability in the type of foodstuff•And 66% considered it even more important than the price

Results•From the survey -transportation methods-:


Hypothesis• Growing level of awareness on the environmental and ethical aspects on foodstuff in Europe ((EC)178/2002) and in the US (FSMA. 2011. H.R. 2751 FDA)• High demand for organic or ecological foodstuff as a clear indication of this development• Increased visibility of the supply chains within the food industry • Increased level of food security and control of health• Consumers are enabled to a better choice of foodstuff and awareness of their “foodprint”• This all leads to increase of added value, fidelity and transparency in the food chains that implement these practices

Results


•From the survey -origin of food produce-:

•The overall majority (>75%) of the population were thinking that it was extremely important to know the origin of their food produce.





Results


•From the survey -conditions of growth/animal welfare-:

•The overall majority (>78%) of the population were thinking that it was important to extremely important to know about the conditions of their food produce•Here, variability was shown depending on the produce with vegetables and poultry in the lower margin of importance





Results


•From the survey -trustability, pricing and homing behavior-:

•Trustability was an issue for 35% of the population•When 66% valued traceability more than the price•For businesses like restaurants, hotels and chain food, 40% of the interviewed population used to eat out and 69% at least once per week•Addition of trustability to businesses like restaurants could be a tipping point and origin of new income revenues




MARKET SURVEYOAP-VP studyTeam: PetitoVentureLab.12

Demographics:

•Gender-wise we had an equal representation of both sexes•And the right proportion of allergic and vegan/vegetarian (inside this category, we assume religious beliefs as a dietary regime as well)•The survey was performed with citizens of the world. A good representation between continents and countries with a tendency to EU countries.•The profile of customer is a person between 26-45 with a high education degree and possibly a good income.


Hypothesis

New Hypothesis


• Growing level of awareness on the environmental and ethical aspects on foodstuff in Europe ((EC)178/2002) and in the US (FSMA. 2011. H.R. 2751 FDA)• High demand for organic or ecological foodstuff as a clear indication of this development• Increased visibility of the supply chains within the food industry • Increased level of food security and control of health• Consumers are enabled to a better choice of foodstuff and awareness of their “foodprint”• This all leads to increase of added value, fidelity and transparency in the food chains that implement these practices

• Our hypothesis seem to mostly hold • People with a high income background is interested on the origin of their foods and is willing to pay for both sustainable and traceable alternatives• These customers are either unaware or blame the food industry of the lack of information• Our study can be biased towards a type of lead user which is probably our market target. • Important issues of health and trustability are raised when talking about food produce and traceability• If traceability and user friendly systems are developed, this will be important assets for both restaurant and food chains as well as food producers/processors





Sheep and goat tag, Lithuania

Cattle passport, Germany

Label on beef steak, Belgium

Label on oranges, Belgium

Food Traceability

The RASFF network, in place since 1979, was enhanced by the General Food Law in 2002. Members of the network are the 27 Member States, the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. This warning system supports the traceability system by enabling the rapid exchange

of information whenever a risk to food or feed safety is identified. If a member of the network becomes aware of a potential risk to human health, it notifies the European Commission, which immediately transmits this information to the other members – and beyond – so that corrective action can be rapidly taken.

EXAMPLES OF TRACEABILITY TOOLS AND LABELS

The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)

Weight





Food Traceability





Weight





Food Traceability





Weight





Food Traceability





Weight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Article_Number

http://www.elastitag.com

Experiments•Field identification of tags

•There’s a difference in standards between the EU and US markets. •A 2D label recently appear in the US market but restricted to vegetable and fruit goods•Only the EAN code is common







Experiments•Field identification of tags

•The information seems to be in place just for cow meat processed within the retail shop. It is hard to acquire. Not camera friendly. QR non-functional


•School food seem to lack enough nutrients for the young kids in Swedish schools•Kids speak with colleagues and friends and hear about the deficiency of good food at schools. Schools could promote themselves through this channel•Poor menus and even lack of variety was between the accusations•We showed this picture to him and he said that he could not take even pictures of his food because his phone would be retired by the school teachers.•Likely the families of school kids are also a prominent customer•School food poses a problem as it is usually processed and it is difficult to reach an agreement with prepared food industries.


Experiments•Interview with a school kid (10 years from Uppsala)

School menu of Martha Payne, http://neverseconds.blogspot.co.uk/


http://neverseconds.blogspot.co.uk

http://neverseconds.blogspot.co.uk

petito.oap.vp.amb.v1

Technology